Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
No, the people who fired him up did so rather sneakily with careful manipulation. He probably saw it, but couldn't resist taking the bait. Again, it wasn't one single event. Boo Boo was tempbanned before his final blowout got him permbanned. His modship was discussed in the mod cave, etc. But I think with my suggested system with infractions, Boo Boo would have been more consistently moderated (would've been tempbanned more often for shorter periods) and so would the people who were winding him up, at least when they made the odd slip up.
Of course I can't say for sure it would have prevented it, but I think it could have. The same goes for similar situations.
|
They were sneaky, and never outright attacked Boo Boo personally. Under your proposed regulations, the situation would have been the same, since they never outright broke the rules, and so couldn't have been infracted. This is a prime example of what happens when modding is rigid rather than fluid. The other mods tried to go purely by the books, punishing Boo Boo when he acted out and leaving the tormentors who technically didn't break any rules alone. Later in your post, you mentioned that we shouldn't preserve the errors of the past; you could learn from this situation. The story of Boo Boo is a prime example of the flaws of rigid modding. And if your proposition is enacted, in response to things becoming rigid, the trolls will just become sneakier, which time has shown ultimately makes them capable of creating worse problems than ever. The foolish loud mouth trolls that we have now can disrupt one or two threads, but sneaky trolls can get a huge portion of the forum banned without breaking a single rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Well, it's not optimal, but sure. I'd take whatever I could get.
|
Why isn't it optimal? It's a good compromise, is implemented in the part of the forum that needs it most, and it allows everyone to get a feel for the new circumstances before they really commit to them. Everybody wins. Of course, I'd rather have your proposition rejected outright, but if everyone else wants it, then I think this is the best way to go about doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Not a very good argument. There are more civil forums than this so it is obviously a possibility. Yes, disagreements will occur, perhaps even hostilities, but overall people can be better behaved. If a little force needs to be applied to achieve that, then a little force should be applied.
Compared to MB, various other boards achieve this and they generally do so by better and more consistent modding practices. We can too.
|
No offense, but maybe you should go hang out in those more civil forums. Around here, we have more freedoms at the cost of things being a bit more hectic. In other places, they sacrifice some of their freedoms in order to have more security. Neither forum is better than the other. They're both different, and appeal to different people. MB has always been this way, and i'm sorry that i'm not able to convince you that the people here
are (mostly) compassionate, and participating throughout the forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Also not a very good argument in my opinion. Why should we preserve errors of the past?
|
Because no matter how strict this forum gets, we'll still have people hurting each other and abusing their power; the only difference is that under your vision, they'll become sneakier and more adept at it in order to survive (since you insisted on bringing survival of the fittest into this
). We'll be left with lazy mods, since they'll rely on automated infractions and filters to take care of things, who will either not know how to deal with complex situations (such as someone being harassed by another member who is always careful to never quite break the rules), or won't care to, since their social connection to the community will be weaker.